Supreme Court of India
SRI RAM NIWAS TOD! AND ANR. versus BIBI JABRUNNISSA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 6 August 1996
- Judges listed
- M.M. PUNCHHI, K. VENKATASWAMI
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 314 · 1996 INSC 831
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Before the Trial Court it was admitted that the suit land measuring 41.5 decimals was homestead land and several houses of phoos (thatch) and tiles were constructtd thereon, which were in occupation of the plaintiff-respondent since long, even prior to the gift Ex. 1 executed in her favour by her father-in- law. Since the parties were Mohamedans, an oral gift by a father- in-law to his daughter-in-law was permissible but here was one which was written but not registered. It could not, in any event, be said that in presence thereof there was no oral gift. Significantly, it was followed by possession making the gift complete and that is the finding of all the three courts below.
p. 314, margin F
The debate before the High Court centered round the erroneous premise that the gifted rroperty was agricultural land to which the provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 as also the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixing of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act got attracted Even so, taking into account those provisions, the High Court came to the conclusion that the oral gift made by a Mohamedan would prevail over the provisions in the tenancy laws, which required occupancy rights to be transferred by means of a registered deed. We think that it was unnecessary for the High Court entering into such controversy and putting the tenancy laws at a disadvantage over Muslim personal law. Once it stood established that the property in dispute was house-property, which included open spaces of land appurtenant and subservient thereto, to which the plaintiffrcspondcnt was put in possession after an oral gift in her favour, that per se should have been enough to keep her suit decreed rejecting the pleas of the defendants-appellants that the gift as invalid, making the natural heirs of the deceased owner claim it by inheritance.
pp. 314–315, margin H
In this view of the matter we affirm the orders of the High Court to lhe extent to which we agree as to the validity of the gift on its own, denuding its judgment of the discussion on the tenancy laws. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.
p. 315, margin C